POL 340Y1 Y, L5101, INTERNATIONAL LAW

TAKE HOME FINAL ASSESSMENT

Part I [Maximum 2,000 words for the entire Part] [YOU MUST ANSWER EVERY
QUESTION]

a. You are a legal advisor to President Keating of Gallo. The President has asked you to
assess all international law claims against Miele under the UN Charter, the 2015 FMT,
the, and the ICCPR. Identify the potential claims and any potential issues that might
arise with each claim.

There are several law claims against Miele under the international law. Firstly, MCA has
arrested the crew members on the Galloian boats without charge, this action has violated the
Article 9 of the ICCPR, which stipulated that people who is arrested should be informed of the
reasons for the arrest and be informed of any charges against them immediately.(ICCPR, Article
9.2). Secondly, according to Article VI of the 2015 FMT, there should be administrative
procedures to allow persons applying and possessing permits to challenge the denial of the
permits of fishing or the limits on the permits in Miele’s courts. Therefore, Miele’s actions on
March 1, 2021, which suspended all permits issued under the 2015 FMT was not lawful. Thirdly,
according to the UN Charter and the UNCLOS, states should settle any dispute by peaceful
means. (UN Charter, Article 2, Paragraph 3 and UNCLOS, Article 279). The MCA had arrested
the Galloian crews without charge and the Miele’s navy had opened fire to to Frigate
Bigglesworth and sunk it, these actions are not using peaceful means. Therefore, Miele had
violated the UN Charter and the UNCLOS.

b. You are a legal advisor to Prime Minister Impalla of Miele. The Prime Minister has asked
you to assess whether the use of force by Task Force Powers was lawful under
international law (both treaty and customary). Additionally, you have been asked to
provide advice on what law applies to the survivors of the Galloian Frigate Bigglesworth
and why.

The use of force by Task Force Powers was lawful under international law. Firstly,
according to the UN Charter, the inherent right of self-defence should not be impaired if
an armed attach has occurred against a state.(UN Charter, Article 51). As the Galloian
Frigates had killed at least 128 citizens of Miele, and they did not retreated after they
entered Miele’s water and were asked and warned to leave, there is reason to believe
that if the Miele’s navy did not use force, the Galloian Frigates might continue attacking
Miele’s ship and killing Miele’s citizens. Therefore, the use of force toward these Frigates
is lawful under the international law.
For the survivors from the Galloian Frigate Bigglesworth, the ICCPR applies to
them. According to the international law,the people deprived of their liberty should get
humanistic treatment and get respected for their inherent dignity of human.(ICCPR,
Article 10, Paragraph 1) Therefore, as these survivors were captured and deprived of
their liberty by our Task Force Powers, we advice that we should treat these survivors
with humanity and we cannot abuse them. In addition, according to the UNCLOS, if
Gallo posts reasonable bond or financial security, we should release the survivors.
(UNCLOS, Article 292).

Page 1 of 3
 c. You are a legal advisor to the UN Secretary General. You have been asked to provide a
legal assessment with respect to the April 6, 2021 missile strike by Quercus against
Gallo. Provide an analysis of the legal issues that arise, and an assessment of the
lawfulness of the conduct.

The missile strike by Quercus against Gallo was not lawful under the
international law. There are serious legal issues arisen in this case. Firstly, according to
the UN Charter, all member states should refrain from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity of any state. (UN Charter, Article 2, Paragraph 3). Therefore,
Quercus’ attack on a Gallion port, which is a territory of Gallo, was not lawful. Secondly,
for the right of “self-defence” mentioned by Quercus’ Ambassador, it should not be
applied to this case. Self-defence stands for the right for a state to fight back and protect
itself when it is under attack. However, Gallo did not attack Quercus. Quercus attacked
Gallo on its own initiative. Therefore, Quercus does not enjoy the right of self-defence
under this case, its attack on Gallion port was not lawful.

Part II [YOU MUST ANSWER BOTH – MAX 650 Words per Question]

1. Throughout the year, we have heard repeatedly how states are the principal subjects
and objects of international law. And yet individuals do constitute a part of the
international legal order. With reference to specific treaties, custom or cases, explain
how individuals play a significant role in the international legal order either as subjects or
objects of international law.

In the international order, although the main subjects and objects are countries or
international organizations, individuals still play an important role under the international legal
system as objects and sometimes subjects.
According to the UN Charter, the international legal order recognizes and protect the
rights and obligations of individuals.(UN Charter, Preamble) The role of individuals as subjects
has get more and more recognizing in the process of the development of the international law.
According to jurist George Scelle, individual human being is the real subject of international law,
because the state is a fictional idea.(Thierry, Hubert (1990), "The European Tradition in
International Law: Georges Scelle, The Thought of Georges Scelle", European Journal of
International Law). In the practice of the international law, individuals are usually been seen as
objects, but they are also playing significant role as subjects. In many cases, according to the
international law, a trail can be made against certain individuals and be held by the international
judicial Courts. If the individual has committed a crime like the war crime or crime against
humanity, then such trail can be started by the international judicial Court without the permission
of the state that the individual belongs to or the domestic law of that state.( The Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court, Article 5) For example, in April 2012, Charles McArthur
Ghankay Taylor, the former President of Libya, had been convicted war crime and crime against
humanity by the Special Court for Sierra Leone because of his brutal behaviors in the Sierra
Leone Civil War. (Charles Taylor Case, Special Court for Sierra Leone (Appeals Chamber),
Sierra Leone) This is an example of individual as an subject of the international law and plays
and important role. Therefore, it is clear that individuals are playing an important role as
subjects under the international legal order.

Page 2 of 3
 2. Covid-19 has and continues to pose a significant health threat to nations around the
globe. Assume for this question that you are a lawyer working for the Government of
Canada. Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Limiting your analysis only to matters of international law, what advice would you give to
the Government of Canada based on the ICCPR as to how best Canada may comply
with the ICCPR while addressing the legitimate health threats posed by Covid-19. In
formulating your answer, you may wish to consider issues related to restrictions on
public spaces, the partial shutdown of the court system or other restrictions imposed on
the citizenry to contain the spread of Covid-19.

In the situation of the worldwide spread of Covid-19 virus, the government of Canada
needs to make actions like implement restrictions on public spaces and make partial shutdown
of some public system in order to stop the virus from spreading and protect the health of the
public. These actions can be taken without violating the domestic and international law.
According to the the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, individuals have
the right to move and choose their residence (ICCPR, Article 12), so the restrictions on travelling
and the mandatory quarantine may be problematic under the international law. However, the
ICCPR also declared that in the situation of a public emergency that threatens people’s life, the
government of the state is allowed to take actions derogating from their obligations under the
present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. (ICCPR,
Article 4.1). The spreading of the Covid-19 virus is certainly a situation when people’s life are
facing serious threat and the public health is in danger. Therefore, in this situation, the
government of Canada is allowed to take actions to make restrictions on the public spaces and
ask the citizens to have self quarantine, as long as these actions are helpful for the controlling of
the epidemic and these actions are following the stipulation of the international law.

Declaration:

I [Sun Jiayue] certify and affirm that the responses contained in this exam are my own
work. I have not collaborated, consulted, or cooperated with any other person in
preparing my answers for this exam. The answers contained here are my own
independent work product.

Page 3 of 3

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)